BBC publishing Right to be forgotten search results.

Danthus · 26 Jun 2015 at 23:30

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f32-b110-d02fbf7fd379

This really makes a mockery of a daft ruling to begin with.

Danthus · 26 Jun 2015 at 23:40

I have just had my attention drawn to a load of stories that I probably would have never seen otherwise so I think it is open to debate.

dowie · 26 Jun 2015 at 23:40

the right to be forgotten ruling is still a farce and the more that is done to undermine it the better

dowie · 26 Jun 2015 at 23:44

tis amusing some of the stories that have been removed - for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6173888.stm

Two high court judges were asked to decide "what is football?" after neighbours fell out over a kick-about in an exclusive, residents-only garden.

Christopher Fleming-Brown, 46, from Kensington, west London, was taken to court by Paula Lawton, 63, after playing ball with his son, aged five.

She accused him of turning the lawn garden into a recreation ground and breaching local by-laws.

Magistrates dismissed Ms Lawton's claim but she is challenging their ruling.

Retrial 'inappropriate'

The case concerned the alleged breach of by-laws governing the Arundel and Elgin gardens in the area close to Notting Hill.

Last November West London Magistrates said the banker's kick-abouts with his son did not amount to football in the eyes of the law.

She successfully challenged the magistrates' ruling before two senior judges at the High Court on Wednesday but was denied a retrial.

Lord Justice Waller, sitting with Mr Justice Treacy, said: "We think the justices took too narrow a view of what constituted football or a similar game by paying too much attention to the dictionary definition, which referred to two teams seeking to put the ball into the opposition's goal.

I wonder which of them requested the deletion from google

stoofa · 26 Jun 2015 at 23:48

But sirely people do have the right to be forgotten?
Surely once a crime becomes spent then legally it is no longer "live", people don't have to mention it when asked, yet somebody could search, find the said story from 10 years ago and still judge someone, probably a reformed person, on their past activities - is that really fair?

Maybe the ruling needs some work, maybe the sheer number of "applicants" has been silly. But I think a rule, allowing people's past to be forgotten is fair.

Danthus · 26 Jun 2015 at 23:51

stoofa said:
But sirely people do have the right to be forgotten?
Surely once a crime becomes spent then legally it is no longer "live", people don't have to mention it when asked, yet somebody could search, find the said story from 10 years ago and still judge someone, probably a reformed person, on their past activities - is that really fair?

Maybe the ruling needs some work, maybe the sheer number of "applicants" has been silly. But I think a rule, allowing people's past to be forgotten is fair.

But there past isn't being forgotten is it, what if you go into a library and pick up and old newspaper and read a story from ten years ago?

Amp34 · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:04

dowie said:
tis amusing some of the stories that have been removed - for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6173888.stm

I wonder which of them requested the deletion from google

On the other hand there are a number of stories that are actually a good example of why the law was put into place in the first place (although I don't necessarily agree with it).

The third one appears to be a good example of this (although It's also a good example of why names should not necessarily be published in the first place). The two women involved (one a victim, the other not) were not named but the two men involved (one the perpetrator and one presumably not involved) were. I'm guessing the request was made by the man that had nothing to do with the crime. That removal seems perfectly reasonable if that is the case, but then he really shouldn't have been named in the first place.

There seem to be other reports of people being cleared accusations of rape and child abuse as well. Even though they were cleared it's not going to look great for them and makes sense why they wanted them removed!

On the other hand there are some that appear to be petty, and lots that I can only assume have been requested by businesses not wanting their name attached to an event.

Fun trying to work out who requested the removal though.

Mynight · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:04

I'm still considering setting up a search engine in Iceland with all the links to forgotten links.

Unless it's slanderous then I see no reason it should be removed.

There's a fair few I can understand but removing someone's criminal past just because it's not recent is scary.

Woden · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:20

OldCoals said:
But there past isn't being forgotten is it, what if you go into a library and pick up and old newspaper and read a story from ten years ago?

There's a bit of a difference between me going to the library and reading a decades worth of the chronicle, and just googlling "john doe +Oldham".

The laws that give us a right to a private life are woefully inadequate for a digital age.

Mynight said:
I'm still considering setting up a search engine in Iceland with all the links to forgotten links.

Unless it's slanderous then I see no reason it should be removed.

There's a fair few I can understand but removing someone's criminal past just because it's not recent is scary.

I find the idea that it's impossible to rehabilitate even scarier. Why would someone give up crime of even the most minor offense followed them for life?

Mynight · 27 Jun 2015 at 00:31

Woden said:
I find the idea that it's impossible to rehabilitate even scarier. Why would someone give up crime of even the most minor offense followed them for life?

Quite. Surely it depends on the crime in question?

I don't mean in reference to theft really unless they had control over my bank accounts. I'm more referring to the murder, rape, assault.

I know it's not a black and white situation but potentially someone who's had a rape conviction could have records removed putting people at risk. For example the club I used to work at never hired anyone with a drugs or sexual conviction due to the risk it posed to not only customers but the business itself.

I would want to be able to google my sisters boyfriend and find out if he's had a domestic violence claim or anything newsworthy.

Woden · 27 Jun 2015 at 03:53

But rapists are put on the sex offenders register. Murder convictions are never spent. There are things in place for this already.

Tefal · 27 Jun 2015 at 05:26

Mynight said:
Quite. Surely it depends on the crime in question?

I don't mean in reference to theft really unless they had control over my bank accounts. I'm more referring to the murder, rape, assault.

I know it's not a black and white situation but potentially someone who's had a rape conviction could have records removed putting people at risk. For example the club I used to work at never hired anyone with a drugs or sexual conviction due to the risk it posed to not only customers but the business itself.

I would want to be able to google my sisters boyfriend and find out if he's had a domestic violence claim or anything newsworthy.

If your sister was concerned she can go to the police and ask under a law that we slashed a while ago and they will tell her.

It's also a good way to potential destroy a man standing life as they will tell anything regardless of if it was proved or even went further than a statement.